Procedural Effectiveness of International Humanitarian Assistance

Global Journal of Health Science; Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016 ISSN 1916-9736 E-ISSN 1916-9744 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Procedural Effectiveness of International Humanitarian Assistance Shandiz Moslehi1,2, Ali Ardalan1,2,3, Daniel C. Tirone4, William L. Waugh Jr.5 & Ali Akbarisari6 1

Department of Disaster & Emergency Health, Iran's National Institute of Health Research, Tehran, Iran

2

Department of Disaster Public Health, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 3

Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

4

Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University, USA

5

Department of Public Management and Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, USA

6

Department of Health Economics and Management, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Correspondence: Ali Ardalan, MD, PhD. 78, Italy Ave, Department of Disaster and Emergency Health, National Institute of Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Email: [email protected] Received: December 12, 2015 doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n11p16

Accepted: January 22, 2016

Online Published: February 29, 2016

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n11p16

Abstract Procedural effectiveness relates to the impact assessment; so, the objective of this study is to identify the procedural effectiveness indicators and develop a conceptual mapping of existing impact indicators in the field of International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA). We conducted a literature review and searched the websites of humanitarian assistance organizations. Documents were included if they focused on IHA procedural effectiveness or impact evaluations. Reviewers identified the eligible studies and extracted data. A conceptual framework was used to categorize the indicators of secured (protection, good health and food security) and avoided (illness, death and malnutrition) issues. 10 documents were included and categorized based on the framework. It was found that there is no agreed and unique methodology and indicators to assess the impact of humanitarian assistance projects. This study could be the step toward understanding of IHA procedural effectiveness indicators and also the findings can make a base line to start more research. Keywords: procedural effectiveness, international humanitarian assistance, impact 1. Introduction Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) defines the humanitarian assistance (HA) as: “Aid that seeks, to save lives and alleviate suffering of a crisis-affected population” (OCHA, 2013). The aim of HA is to protect life of the affected people during and after disasters. International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) will be provided when the governments of the affected countries are unable to provide aid in an effective way. The assistance is provided in emergency situations to save and protect human life in both natural and man-made disasters (CIDA, 1996). This assistance should be allocated in an effective way in order to maximize its impact. Effectiveness is a term which seems to have many different definitions. Etzioni in 1964 was one of the first researchers who defined the goal attainment approach of effectiveness (Etzioni, 1964; Spar & Dail, 2002). Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum in 1957 and Yuchtman and Seashore in 1967 emphasized a financial approach. (Georgopoulos & Tannenbaum, 1957; Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967). The approach of reputation was evolved from Georgopoulos and Mann’s project in the hospital system (Georgopoulos & Mann, 1962). This approach relies on subjective performance measures reported by informants or organizational stakeholders (Jobson & Schneck, 1982). After that the literature focused on the definition of more complex methods of effectiveness, such as multi-dimension models (Cameron & Whetten, 1983; Foster & Lock, 1990; Zammuto, 1984), competing values models (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), contingency models (Lewin & Minton, 1986), and balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996) approaches. These methods tried to unify the aspects of goal attainment, resource control and reputation approaches (Herman & Renz, 1999). Four categories can be identified for the effectiveness: substantive; transactive; normative; and procedural 16

www.ccsenet.org/gjhs

Global Journal of Health Science

Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

(Baker & McLelland, 2003, Theophilou et al., 2010). Substantive effectiveness relates to the goal achievement (Sadler, 1996). When the practice is completed, substantive effectiveness is used to answer if the objectives are obtained or not (Baker & McLelland, 2003). In situations when there are some changes in the policy, plan or program, substantive effectiveness could be assessed (Theophilou et al., 2010). Transactive effectiveness considers the achievement of outcomes by focusing on the cost and time (Sadler, 1996). Using fewer resources to achieve the objectives or outcomes could be assessed by the transactive effectiveness (Baker & McLelland, 2003). Considering the skills and the roles of practitioners in addition to the time and cost to define the transactive effectiveness was mentioned by Theophilou (2010). Normative effectiveness considers the achievement of normative objectives (Baker & McLelland, 2003). In situations when there are some changes in the organizations, mission and culture, the decision making could be affected (Cashmore et al., 2004). Normative changes could be observed based on the perceptions of those who were involved as stakeholders to the process or in the implementation of the tool. Procedural effectiveness relates to the impact assessment (Sadler, 1996). It should also reflect what and how the procedures of the projects are implemented (Baker & McLelland, 2003). Bina (2007) added that the methodological approach could affect procedural effectiveness. Measuring the procedural effectiveness involves the need first to define the impact. The definition of impact used by Oxfam is: “Significant or lasting change brought about by a given action or series of actions” (Roche, 1999). The most commonly-used definition of impact is provided by the OECD/DAC: “The positive and negative, primary and secondary, long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended” (OECD/DAC, 2002). Measuring impact in emergency situations and contexts is complicated. Many international humanitarian organizations have an approach to assessing the impact of their work. They have their evaluation guidelines to assess the impact of humanitarian aids (ALNAP 2001, 2005, World Food Program 2008, The Sphere Project 2004). In spite of these commitments to assessing the impact of humanitarian assistance, the lack of effective impact assessment is more pronounced. The objective of this study is to present the conceptual mapping of indicators which are used for measuring the procedural effectiveness and the impact assessment of international humanitarian assistance. 2. Methods Procedural effectiveness relates to the impact assessment (Sadler, 1996). So, literature review was used for summarizing current thinking on measuring the procedural effectiveness. This review presents a summary of the literature on impact assessment indicators, focusing on impact assessment of international humanitarian assistance. This study is conducted in two phases. First, the impact indicators of humanitarian assistance were searched from humanitarian organizations’ websites. Second, a conceptual framework was used to categorize the impact indicators. 2.1 Search Strategy The search keywords were selected after consulting the experts. Databases were searched with the following keywords: humanitarian* AND assistance* OR relief* OR aid* AND effectiveness*. This search was conducted following organizational reports and documents: Oxfam, OCHA, Save the Children, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP), Department for International Development (DFID) and Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) and Google as a general search engine. 2.2 Inclusion Criteria There are different definitions for effectiveness. But we focused on the procedural effectiveness which relates to the impact assessment in this manuscript. So, we include the studies if they were focused on the impact indicators. Eligible studies included English-language articles with no limitation in time of studies. No other filters were applied. Articles were included if they focused on international humanitarian assistance and procedural effectiveness or impact indicators. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Also, organizational reports and documents were included. 17



Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

2.3 Exclusion Criteria Non English studies, the irrelevant studies to IHA effectiveness and articles with similar keywords but covering unrelated topics were excluded. 2.4 Selection of Studies After excluding duplicated studies, references found through the search were evaluated for inclusion criteria by reading their titles and abstracts. After an initial screening of abstracts of those that remained, the first author (SM) read and analyzed their full texts to determine their eligibility. This was done under the supervision of second author (AA). The first author had passed IHA course at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. Quality assessment was performed using study design appropriate Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tools. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by consulting other authors.

Source: Hofmann, C.A., Roberts, L., Shoham, J. & Harvey, P. (2004). Measuring the impact of humanitarian aid: A review of current practice, The Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute, p.9. Figure 1. Framework and dimensions that need to be considered for evaluating the impact of humanitarian assistance

18



Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

2.5 Data Extraction and Analysis We extracted the following data from each study report: organization; indicator; and the reference. Data extraction forms were designed using Microsoft Excel. Extracted data were presented in a descriptive table. 2-1-Conceptual framework: Charles-Antoine Hofmann, Les Roberts, Jeremy Shoham and Paul Harvey (2004) defined a conceptual framework for evaluating the impact of humanitarian assistance. Figure 1 shows the dimensions that need to be considered for evaluating the impact of humanitarian assistance. This conceptual framework shows the complexity of the humanitarian aid system, and the impact on population. The impact on population has been divided to two categories of secured (protection, good health and food security) and avoided (illness, death and malnutrition) issues. 3. Results Evaluation process often tends to focus on outputs and outcomes rather than impacts. 10 studies were included in this manuscript. Table 1 shows the indicators suggested by various studies on impact assessment of international humanitarian assistance in two categories of secured protection, good health and food security and avoid illness, death and malnutrition. Table 1. Indicators for measuring the impact of international humanitarian assistance Impact on Population

Indicator

Organization/Topic

Reference

Shelter, Food aid, Health, Protection, Human rights, Advocacy

ALNAP Annual

ALNAP, 2001

Dietary change, Increasing short ‐ term food access, Decreasing numbers of people to feed, Rationing strategies (prioritizing children; limiting portion size, skipping meals)

Coping Strategies

Emergency

Index (Emergency

Nutrition

Nutrition Network)

Network

Review 2001

2001 and Gupta, P &et al., 2015 Secured Protection, Good health and Food security

Vital needs, Basic social services, Infrastructure, Livelihoods

Tsunami Recovery,

TRIAMS, 2006

Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS) Impact Indicators

Coverage, Protection and security, Sustainability

Roche: Impact

Roche, 1999

Assessment for Development Agencies – Emergency contexts household measures of income and expenditure, food consumption, health, security, confidence and hope

Feinstein International Center, Tufts University

Catley & et al., 2013

Crude mortality rate (CMR), Wasting in children under 5 years

Standardised

Young & Jaspars, 2006

Avoid Illness, Death, Malnutrition

Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transition (SMART) Indicators

Mortality and morbidity rates

Roche: Impact Assessment for

19

Roche, 1999



Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

Development Agencies –emergency contexts Health, including mortality, malnutrition, health threats

morbidity,

Save the Children UK: Guide to Assessment Monitoring, Evaluation

Mortality and malnutrition rates

Review

Save the Children, 1999

and

Les Roberts: Assessing the impact of humanitarian assistance in the health sector

Roberts & Hofmann, 2004

There are several indicators (n=22) categorized in Secured category while there are 3 main indicators of mortality, morbidity and malnutrition categorized in Avoid category. 60% of documents were focused on Secured indicators and 40% of documents were focused on the Avoid indicators. All the indicators, directly or indirectly, were related to the health subjects. 4. Discussion Focusing on impact indicators and evaluation methodologies is needed for the measurement of the procedural effectiveness of international humanitarian assistance. How the impact of humanitarian assistance projects can best be measured, is a technical question that should be answered before starting to assess the impact of such projects. We found several indicators for assessing the procedural effectiveness. The most interesting result was that all the indicators, which were related to the impact if IHA, were related to the health issues. There are a range of methodologies to assess the impact indicators which were found in the result section. Impact assessment of humanitarian assistance in an emergency situation is a relatively young area of research (Oakley, et al., 1998). Lack of standardized tools and rigorous methodologies for impact assessment is a global concern (Hofmann et al., 2004; Global Center for Development, 2006). For assessing the procedural effectiveness we need to use an appropriate methodology. There are different methodologies which were used by different organizations to assess the impact of humanitarian assistance. Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and randomized impact evaluation was used in Liberia, Colombia, Chad and some other African countries to conduct ‘before’ and ‘after’ household surveys. International Rescue Committee (IRC) used this methodology to avoid selection bias, which reduced the chances of evaluators attributing differences between program and non-program communities to the interventions. WFP & IFPRI conducted the RCT study in Colombia. Food consumption, social capital and anemia were the indicators of their study (Watson, 2008; Puri, 2015). Participatory impact monitoring and Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) are other methodologies used in Niger and Liberia to assess the impact. In these studies PIA focused on the changes in household food security and income resulting from the project’s re-stocking. Semi-structured household interviews, focus-group discussions, ‘before and after’ ranking and scoring were used to assess the impact (Puri, 2015). Recipient perceptions review is another methodology used by FAO and Fritz Institute (Fritz Institute, 20042006). They used qualitative (story telling) and quantitative (questionnaires) methods to assess the impact of humanitarian assistance. UNHCR & WFP (2012) used quasi experimental studies in Bangladesh and used food security, refugee movement, global acute malnutrition, economic activity and earnings, copying strategy index, household dietary diversity score and protection as the study indicators (Watson, 2008; Puri, 2015). Despite existing different methodologies (Watson, 2008; Puri, 2015), this paper has shown that there is no best method to assess the impact of humanitarian assistance. Also, lack of epidemiological skills of NGOs’ staff is an obstacle in choosing an appropriate methodology for assessing the impact of humanitarian assistance (Roberts & Hofmann, 2004). Identifying and using appropriate indicators is an important part of assessing the impact of an intervention. Most of humanitarian organizations tend to assess process/output indicators, rather than impact indicators (Roberts, 2004; Shoham, 2004). Also, the Sphere project focused on process indicators and most of the indicators are not defined to assess the impact of humanitarian intervention. One reason may be that the collection of impact indicators is sometimes seen to be more difficult than process/output indicators (Hofmann, 2004). While ALNAP annual review, coping strategies index (emergency nutrition network), impact indicators of 20



Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

Tsunami Recovery, Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS), Roche and Feinstein International Center define impact indicators in ‘secured protection, good health and food security’ category, other studies focused on ‘Avoid Illness, Death, Malnutrition’ category. These indicators could be analyzed at different levels from the individual project, at the level of a sector, at a country level or at the level of an organization and its global impact (Hofmann, 2004). Adequately trained, experienced, and motivated staff should be hired to design and evaluate the impact of humanitarian assistance projects. Also, surveillance systems should be used to monitor the impact indicators. Surveillance is the systematic collection of information over time. Lack of systematic monitoring and surveillance in the humanitarian assistance projects is a serious obstacle to assessing the impact of humanitarian aid (Roberts & Hofmann, 2004). 5. Conclusion As recognized at the Consultation Workshop for Humanitarian Effectiveness in 2013, identifying ways of defining, measuring and improving the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance was one of the thematic areas of focus for the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) (OCHA, 21 March 2013). This study has reviewed current knowledge about the procedural effectiveness assessment of humanitarian assistance. The findings of this study indicate that there is no agreed and unique methodology and indicators to assess the impact of humanitarian assistance projects, although there is a global need for evaluating the effectiveness of international humanitarian assistance projects. Also we found that all the impact indicators of IHA were related to the health issues. We developed a conceptual mapping of existing indicators through the conceptual framework. We believe that the findings of this study could help the researches to use an appropriate methodology and indicators to assess the procedural effectiveness of international humanitarian assistance. Limitation The findings might not be representative of all IHA organizations, since we had analyzed the documents of major IHA organizations. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper. This article is a part of a PhD dissertation from Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. References Abebe, D., & Catley, A. (2013). Participatory impact assessment in drought policy contexts. In J. Holland (ed.), Who Counts? The power of participatory statistics. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby. ALNAP. (2001). Humanitarian Action: Learning from Evaluation ALNAP Annual Review 2001. London: ALNAP. ALNAP. (2003a). ALNAP Humanitarian Action: Improving Monitoring to Enhance Accountability and Learning ALNAP Annual Review 2003. London: ALNAP. ALNAP. (2003b). ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action in 2003: Field Level Learning Key Messages. London: ALNAP ALNAP. (2005). Assessing the Quality of Humanitarian Evaluations: The ALNAP Quality Proforma 2005 (v. 02/03/05). London: Overseas Development Institute. ALNAP. (2006). Evaluating Humanitarian Action Using the OECD‐DAC Criteria: An ALNAP Guide for Humanitarian Agencies Section 3: Working with the DAC Criteria. London: Overseas Development Institute ALNAP. (2007). Key Messages from ALNAP's Seventh Review of Humanitarian Action. Baker, D. C., & Mclelland, J. N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for first nations' participation in mining development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 581-603. Bina, O. (2007). A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 585-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.003 Burns, J., & Bogale, S. (2012). Impact assessment of livestock value chain interventions. Final impact assessment of the PSNP Plus project in Raya Azebo. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford. 21



Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Some Conclusions about Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Academic Press. Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D., & Bond, A. (2004). Effectiveness of EIA; The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22, 295-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765860 Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D., & Suji, O. (2013). Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Somerville CIDA. (1996). CIDA's Policy on Poverty Reduction. Retrieved http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/STE-42484628-GZF

December,

2014,

from

Emergency Nutrition Network. (2001). The Coping Strategies Index: Monitoring food security status in emergencies Field Exchange No. 13. Retrieved from http://www.ennonline.net/fex/13/rs51.html Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organisations. NJ: Englewood Cliffs. Foster, M. J., & Lock, A. R. (1990). Factoring Effectiveness Factors! The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(2), 111-117. Fritz Institute. (2004). Inaugural Humanitarian Impact Conference Proceedings of the 2004 Impact Conference, 2004. Washington DC: Fritz Institute http://www.fritzinstitute.org/prgHIConference.htm Fritz Institute. (2005). Recipient Perceptions of Aid Effectiveness: Rescue, Relief and Rehabilitation in Tsunami Affected Indonesia. India and Sri Lanka San Francisco: Fritz Institute Fritz Institute. (2006a). Evidence of Impact: Challenges and New Directions Proceedings of the 2006 Impact Conference, 2006. Sebastopol, California: Fritz Institute Retrieved from http://www.fritzinstitute.org/prgHI-Conference2006.htm Fritz Institute. (2006b). Hurricane Katrina: Perceptions of the Affected. San Francisco: Fritz Institute Georgopoulos, B. S., & Mann, F. C. (1962). The Community General Hospital. New York: MacMillan. Georgopoulos, B. S., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1957). A Study of Organizational Effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 22(5), 534-540. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089477 Global Center for Development. (2006). When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group. Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development Gupta, P., Singh, K., Seth, V., Agarwal, S., & Mathur, P. (2015). Coping Strategies Adopted by Households to Prevent Food Insecurity in Urban Slums of Delhi, India. Journal of Food Security, 3(1), 6-10. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 107-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764099282001 Hofmann, C. A., Roberts, L., Shoham, J., & Harvey, P. (2004). Measuring the impact of humanitarian aid: A review of current practice, The Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute, p.9. Holland, J. (ed.) (2013). Who Counts? The power of participatory statistics. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing. Jobson, J. D., & Schneck, R. (1982). Constituent Views of Organizational Effectiveness: Evidence from Police Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 25-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256022 Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 74(January/February), 75-85. Lewin, A. Y., & Minton, J. W. (1986). Determining Organizational Effectiveness: Another Look, and an Agenda for Research. Management Science, 32(5), 514-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.514 Moslehi, S., Fatemi, F., Mahboubi, M., Mozafarsaadati, H., & Karami, S. (2015). The Challenges and Recommendations of Accessing to Affected Population for Humanitarian Assistance: A Narrative Review. Global Journal of Health Science, 7(3), 111- 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v7n3p11 Oakley, P., Pratt, B., & Clayton, A. (1998). Outcomes and Impact: Evaluating Change in Social Development NGO Management and Policy Series No. 6. Oxford: INTRAC. OCHA. (21 March 2013). Consutative workshop for Humanitarian Effectiveness. New York: OCHA Patricia J. Rogers. (2012). Introduction to Impact Evaluation, Impact Evaluation Notes No. 1 March 2012. InterAction and the Rockerfeller Foundation. 22



Vol. 8, No. 11; 2016

Paul, J. G. et al. (2011). Impact Evaluation in Practice. The World Bank. Puri, J. et al. (2015). What Methods May Be Used in Impact Evaluations of Humanitarian Assistance?. India, Discussion Paper No. 8755. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363 Roberts, L., & Hofmann, C. A. (2004). Assessing the impact of humanitarian assistance in the health sector, Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 1, 3. Roberts, L. (2004). Measuring the Impact of Humanitarian Health Programmes. Background Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. Roche, C. (1999). Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change. Oxford: OXFAM, Novib Sadler, B. (1996). International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment, Final report. Ottawa, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Save the Children UK. (1999). Toolkits – A Practical Guide to Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment by Louise Gosling with Mike Edwards. London: Save the Children. Schroff, R., Mengistu, D., & Hanna, T. (2011). Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford Shoham, J. (2004). Review of the Role of Nutrition and Food Security Information in Assessing the Impact of Humanitarian Interventions. Background Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. Spar, D., & Dail, J. (2002). Of Measurement and Mission. Accounting for Performance in Non-Governmental Organizations. Chicago Journal of International Law, 3(1), 171-182. Stern, E., et al. (2012). Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation. Department for International Development Working Paper 38. Theophilou, V., Bond, A. & Cashmore, M. (2010) Application of SEA Directive to EU structural funds: Perspectives on effectiveness. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 136-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.08.001 The Sphere Project. (2004). Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Geneva: The Sphere Project. TRIAMS. (2006a). Risk Reduction Indicators TRIAMS Working Paper. Watson, C. (October 2008). Impact Assessment of Humanitarian Response: A Review of the Literature (pp. 16-17). Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Addis Ababa. White, H., & Phillips, D. (2012). Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact evaluations: towards an integrated framework. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Working Paper 15. World Food Programme. (2008). Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines. World Food Programme, Rome. Retrieved from http://www.wfp.org/operations/evaluation/guidelines.asp?section=5&sub_section=8 Young, H., & Jaspars, S. (2006). The Meaning and Measurement of Acute Malnutrition in Emergencies: A Primer for Decision Makers Humanitarian Network Paper 56. London: Overseas Development Institute Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 891-903. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092843 Zammuto, R. F. (1984). A Comparison of Multiple Constituency Models of Organizational Effectiveness. The Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 6060-6616. Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

23